Funny how the wingnuts call these social issues a distraction yet they are the ones who keep introducing new social issue legislation.

Who are you kidding? Without these SoCons constantly screwing up the conservative message you'd have nothing to be outraged about. These people make your lives easy by providing targets for you to use to scare your low information voters back onto the Democrat line. You should be thanking them.

Frankly all these social issues are a big distraction from the problems with the economy. They are a ball and chain for fiscal conservatives.

Anyway, if this is irrational discrimination, let's get back to the "rational" discrimination practiced by moonbats.

Moonbatism - you report, they decide

Oddly enough you hit on the right legal definition. You CAN discriminate if it is done for rational reasons. Indeed it is the only time you can discriminate. All laws have winners and losers and all laws must have a rational basis for them to pass constitutional muster. But perhaps you have a problem with such a practice and approach?

Dozens of prominent Republicans have signed a legal brief being sent to the Supreme Court this week arguing that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry—a position that is not only a direct challenge to House Republicans, who are defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act to the high court, but also a complete reversal for many of the signees.

The New York Times, which was given an early look at the brief, with the details:

The Proposition 8 case already has a powerful conservative supporter: Theodore B. Olson, the former solicitor general under Mr. Bush and one of the suit’s two lead lawyers. The amicus, or friend-of-the-court, brief is being filed with Mr. Olson’s blessing. It argues, as he does, that same-sex marriage promotes family values by allowing children of gay couples to grow up in two-parent homes, and that it advances conservative values of “limited government and maximizing individual freedom.”

Legal analysts said the brief had the potential to sway conservative justices as much for the prominent names attached to it as for its legal arguments. The list of signers includes a string of Republican officials and influential thinkers — 75 as of Monday evening — who are not ordinarily associated with gay rights advocacy, including some who are speaking out for the first time and others who have changed their previous positions.

Among the most well-known Republicans on the list are: Meg Whitman, who supported Prop 8 during her California gubernatorial run; Jon Huntsman, the former Utah governor who opposed same-sex marriage (but favored civil unions) during his bid to become the 2012 GOP presidential nominee; Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York; former governors Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey, and William Weld and Jane Swift of Massachusetts; along with a handful of former members of the George W. Bush administration, including Carlos Gutierrez and James Comey.

The brief is still a work-in-prrogess and other Republicans could still sign on, but for now it has a few noticeable absences, including Laura Bush, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell, who all publicly favor same-sex marriage. The high court is slated to hear back-to-back arguments in March on the legal challenge to Prop 8 and DOMA.

All along, many conservatives have said it is a state issue..... and most states have voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman in their state Constitutions, reflecting the will of the people.

"It argues, as he does, that same-sex marriage promotes family values by allowing children of gay couples to grow up in two-parent homes, and that it advances conservative values of “limited government and maximizing individual freedom.”

That is a political argument, not a legal one.

Gay marriage is the law of New York state, voted by state legislators: but under this supposed legal standard, if a judge honestly believed same-sex marriage does not "promote family values", then can the judge overturn gay marriage in New York?

In that instance, no doubt, gay marriage advocates would say the judge should not impose his own beliefs, and that the statute reflects the will of the people of New York !

If gay marriage continues to rise in the polls, then the states will amend their Constitutions to reflect the will of the people..

Dozens of prominent Republicans have signed a legal brief being sent to the Supreme Court this week arguing that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marryâa position that is not only a direct challenge to House Republicans, who are defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act to the high court, but also a complete reversal for many of the signees.

The New York Times, which was given an early look at the brief, with the details:

The Proposition 8 case already has a powerful conservative supporter: Theodore B. Olson, the former solicitor general under Mr. Bush and one of the suitâs two lead lawyers. The amicus, or friend-of-the-court, brief is being filed with Mr. Olsonâs blessing. It argues, as he does, that same-sex marriage promotes family values by allowing children of gay couples to grow up in two-parent homes, and that it advances conservative values of âlimited government and maximizing individual freedom.â

Legal analysts said the brief had the potential to sway conservative justices as much for the prominent names attached to it as for its legal arguments. The list of signers includes a string of Republican officials and influential thinkers â 75 as of Monday evening â who are not ordinarily associated with gay rights advocacy, including some who are speaking out for the first time and others who have changed their previous positions.

Among the most well-known Republicans on the list are: Meg Whitman, who supported Prop 8 during her California gubernatorial run; Jon Huntsman, the former Utah governor who opposed same-sex marriage (but favored civil unions) during his bid to become the 2012 GOP presidential nominee; Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York; former governors Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey, and William Weld and Jane Swift of Massachusetts; along with a handful of former members of the George W. Bush administration, including Carlos Gutierrez and James Comey.

The brief is still a work-in-prrogess and other Republicans could still sign on, but for now it has a few noticeable absences, including Laura Bush, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell, who all publicly favor same-sex marriage. The high court is slated to hear back-to-back arguments in March on the legal challenge to Prop 8 and DOMA.

All along, many conservatives have said it is a state issue..... and most states have voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman in their state Constitutions, reflecting the will of the people.

"It argues, as he does, that same-sex marriage promotes family values by allowing children of gay couples to grow up in two-parent homes, and that it advances conservative values of âlimited government and maximizing individual freedom.â

That is a political argument, not a legal one.

Gay marriage is the law of New York state, voted by state legislators: but under this supposed legal standard, if a judge honestly believed same-sex marriage does not "promote family values", then can the judge overturn gay marriage in New York?

In that instance, no doubt, gay marriage advocates would say the judge should not impose his own beliefs, and that the statute reflects the will of the people of New York !

If gay marriage continues to rise in the polls, then the states will amend their Constitutions to reflect the will of the people..

You are purposely dim about this issue. Gay marriage is a question about rights and discrimination against those rights. Whether people vote on the matter or not is irrelevant because it is based in Constitutional due process rights. It is a matter of law first and foremost. Rights are not decided by the will of the majority UNLESS there is a rational basis to such a decision. Marriage between the races was prohibited by the will of the majority, but it was overturned by a legal decision as a matter of right. These conservatives recognize this overall argument. It shows that some conservatives take rights seriously and can address the issue in a rational manner free from the emotionalism of calls for supposed "traditional" morality. Apparently however, you can't do this. They are just different aren't they?

I was happy to see the 75 GOPers sign on to brief. They are the ones who understand it is time to evolve and adhere to the basics of the party; small federal government, states rights, free enterprise model solutions and self reliance. Huntsman tried to steer the party away from the overly conserviative social agenda and move on with what was important.

I'm quite sure like Christie those 75 aren't on the CPAC speakers list; too bad for them as their own echo chamber will doom their relevance and potentially the GOP party for the next few cycles.

The usual right wing idea is that government needs to stop intruding on personal freedom. On that basis, the Republicans should oppose DOMA and work for its removal. Kudos for those Republicans who have finally seen the light and have become consistent in the application of their principles (for once).

Well at least you admit the dems refuse to change Mr Clinton's law, yet claim moral superiority on the issue. Republicans tell you they oppose gay marriage. Dems tell you they are all for it, and then do nothing.

Well, except for POTUS, who came right out and said he opposes gay marriage. At least he was honest about it, albeit, wrong.

When democrats come up with a bill to repeal DOMA, they have standing. Until they do, they don't.

One did, but Barney Frank told him to screw and that was the end of that

But you can't ignore that the effort to support gay equity marriage rights is overwhelmingly based in liberal Democrats and the effort to oppose it is overwhelmingly based in the conservative G.O.P. But actually you will ignore it... These 75 members of the G.O.P. are getting recognition for their efforts precisely because they run counter to the official stance of their party.

Well at least you admit the dems refuse to change Mr Clinton's law, yet claim moral superiority on the issue. Republicans tell you they oppose gay marriage. Dems tell you they are all for it, and then do nothing.

Well, except for POTUS, who came right out and said he opposes gay marriage. At least he was honest about it, albeit, wrong.